Are AI ETFs expensive right now?

Updated September 11, 2026

How AIQ's valuation compares with its own past

The line is AIQ's trailing price-to-earnings ratio, one reading per month across 101 observations since June 2018 — every one of them our own calculation from the fund's holdings rather than a figure quoted from a provider.

All five funds, and where each sits in its own range

Value, quality and risk scores are ETF Copilot's own 0–10 measures computed across every fund we cover. Higher is better on all three, so a low value score means expensive. Where a column is highlighted, amber marks the least favourable reading of the group and green the most favourable.

The five funds are not interchangeable

"AI" is a description of a business, not a sector classification, so each provider draws the line somewhere different: some funds hold the large platform companies that sell the compute, others hold the industrial robotics and automation names, and a few hold both plus the software layer above them. Two funds with the same three letters in their name can share very little.

The most expensive of the five is THNQ at 35.4 times earnings; the weakest on the quality of what it holds is ROBT, scoring 2.4 out of 10. They are not the same fund, which is the point: price and company quality are two separate questions here, and a fund can be at the wrong end of either one on its own.

At the other end, two of the five are cheaper than the group's midpoint on our value score without also sitting below it on company quality: ARTY at 9.2 on value and 8.6 on quality; BOTZ at 6.6 on value and 6.0 on quality.

Trailing earnings are the harshest lens available

What would have to be true for today's reading to hold

Stated as conditions, because a condition is checkable and because nothing here says what to do about any fund:

• The earnings have to arrive. AIQ's multiple falls from 25.7 to 20.6 only if the forecast earnings are delivered in full. Delivered halfway, it is around 23.2 times.
• The way each fund is built has to keep mattering. THNQ holds 54 companies and scores 6.0 out of 10 on company quality; ROBT spreads across 112 and scores 2.4. Those are two different bets wearing one label.
• The ride has to be tolerable. Our risk score runs 0 to 10, where 10 is the steadiest fund in the universe we cover. Across this group it runs from 1.1 for ARTY to 2.5 for AIQ, against 7.5 for VOO. The same funds produced the multiples above and those scores.

How this compares with the wider market

AI ETFs are not the only funds trading away from their own past. QQQ is more expensive than 93% of its own record, at 30.8 times against a median of 25.1, and VOO is more expensive than 84% of its own record, at 25.2 times against a median of 21.5. The same measurement, applied to the other themes people ask about: semiconductor ETFs sit above 89% to 97% of their own records; defense ETFs sit above 25% to 89% of their own records; data center and AI power ETFs sit below their own long-run multiples.

For which funds actually hold this exposure, rather than what they cost, see the look-through hub, which lists every fund with meaningful exposure to the theme and how much of each fund it is.

Is AIQ expensive right now?

Against its own record, no on trailing earnings: AIQ trades at 25.7 times against a median of 25.8, cheaper than 53% of its own 101 monthly readings, and it has been above that median in 19 of the last 24 months. Against the earnings expected next year the same fund is at 20.6 times, so both lenses point the same way and the page above shows both.

Which AI ETF is cheapest against its own history?

ARTY, cheaper than 96% of its own 26 monthly readings — the lowest of the five funds here relative to its own past. That is a different question from which fund is cheapest outright: on price alone the lowest multiple of the group is AIQ at 25.7 times. A fund can carry the lowest multiple in its group and still be expensive for itself.

Why do two AI ETFs show different P/E ratios?

Because two AI ETFs hold different companies in different proportions. A fund's price-to-earnings ratio is the weighted average of the ratios of what it holds, so a fund capped at the largest and most profitable names produces a different figure from one that equal-weights a much wider list. Providers also differ on trailing versus forward earnings, on how loss-making companies are handled, and on the date of the holdings file. Every figure on this page is computed the same way for every fund, from each fund's own published holdings.

Does a high P/E mean these funds will fall?

No. The ratio measures price against earnings already reported. It carries no information about what happens next, and reading a forecast into a measurement is the most common mistake made with it. What it does tell you is where a fund sits relative to what buyers have been willing to pay for the same fund in the past, which is a fact about the past and the present only.

Cite this
ETF Copilot, “AI ETFs measured against their own price-to-earnings history”, figures as of September 11, 2026. https://etf-copilot.com/learn/are-ai-etfs-expensive

Method. The price-to-earnings ratio is trailing twelve-month, computed by ETF Copilot from each fund's own published holdings rather than quoted from a data provider: every holding's ratio, weighted by its weight in the fund, across the whole portfolio and not the top ten. The monthly series is rebuilt from the holdings as they stood at each date, so the line is comparable with itself. “More expensive than” is the share of that fund's own monthly readings sitting below today's. History lengths differ by fund, from 26 monthly readings to 114, because the funds launched at different times; each percentile is measured against that fund's own record and no other. Value, quality and risk scores are ETF Copilot's own 0–10 measures computed across every fund we cover; higher is better on all three, so a low value score means expensive. Figures are as of September 11, 2026 and are recalculated daily.

See AIQ in full, and any of the funds we cover →

Nothing on this page is investment advice, a recommendation, or a forecast of returns.